10296690 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 25, 2012)

Ex Parte Hamilton et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 25, 2012

10296690 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/296,690 11/26/2002 Thomas Herman Hamilton RCA 90230 5495 7590 06/25/2012 Joseph S Tripoli Thomson Multimedia Licensing Inc PO Box 5312 Princeton, NJ 08543-5312 EXAMINER DESIR, JEAN WICEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2422 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/25/2012 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte THOMAS HERMAN HAMILTON and DALE WAYNE KING ____________ Appeal 2010-000744 Application 10/296,690 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-000744 Application 10/296,690 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-21, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Invention Appellants’ invention relates to an auxiliary information processing system with a bitmapped on-screen display. Title. Representative Claim 1. A method for enabling display of auxiliary information included in a television signal, comprising steps of: receiving the auxiliary information; generating a display list in dependence upon the received auxiliary information, wherein the display list includes a bitmap pointer which points to bitmap data in a memory; and outputting the bitmap data as pixel data for producing a display representing the auxiliary information. Prior Art Bril US 6,259,487 B1 July 10, 2001 Kim US 6,766,528 B1 July 20, 2004 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim and Bril. Appeal 2010-000744 Application 10/296,690 3 Claims 2-9 and 11-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim, Bril, and the Background section of Appellants’ Specification. Claim Groupings Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claim 1. ANALYSIS Appellants contend that Kim does not teach “auxiliary information included in a television signal” as recited in claim 1. Br. 5-7. The Examiner finds that Kim teaches auxiliary information included in a television signal. Ans. 7. Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s finding. Appellants contend that Kim is not concerned with a bitmap pointer that points to bitmap data in memory. App. Br. 7-8. However, the Examiner relies on Bril to teach a bitmap pointer that points to bitmap data in memory. Ans. 4, 8. Appellants contend that the combination of Kim and Bril does not teach “generating a display list in dependence upon the received auxiliary information, wherein the display list includes a bitmap pointer which points to bitmap data in a memory” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8-9. The Examiner finds that Kim teaches generating a display list in dependence upon the received information (Ans. 3, 6-7) and Bril teaches a bitmap pointer which points to bitmap data in a memory (Ans. 4 (citing Bril col. 9, l. Appeal 2010-000744 Application 10/296,690 4 66 to col. 10, l. 19)). Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s findings. Appellants contend that Bril does not teach displaying auxiliary information included in a television signal. Br. 8-9. However, the Examiner relies on Kim to teach displaying auxiliary information included in a television signal. Ans. 7. The Examiner also finds that Bril teaches displaying auxiliary information included in a television signal. Ans. 8. Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s findings. Appellants contend that Bril does not teach receiving data pointing to bitmaps located in a memory. Br. 9. However, the section of Bril cited by the Examiner (Ans. 4) teaches that display entities are stored as bitmaps, and pointers may be maintained to define the location and dimensions of one or more display entities (or bitmaps). Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to distinguish “the display list includes a bitmap pointer which points to bitmap data in memory” as recited in claim 1 from the pointers that define locations and dimensions of bitmap display entities as taught by Bril. Appellants contend that there is no reason or motivation to combine Kim and Bril. Br. 9-10. The Examiner finds that combining the bitmap pointers taught by Bril with the auxiliary information taught by Kim provides the advantage of providing additional information to users using a bitmap structure. Ans. 4. We agree with the Examiner. Using the bitmap pointers taught by Bril to display the auxiliary information taught by Kim is the combination of known elements according to familiar methods that does Appeal 2010-000744 Application 10/296,690 5 no more than yield the predictable result of displaying auxiliary information. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). We agree with the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and the Examiner’s Answer. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner for the reasons given by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and the Examiner’s Answer. Appellants present arguments for independent claims 10and 19 and dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, 20, and 21 similar to those presented for claim 1 which we find unpersuasive. Br. 10-29. . DECISION The rejections of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED babc